VICTORIA'S top traffic cop has told police to start fining more motorists for low-level speeding offences.
For more details, click below
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/traffic-police-to…
Traffic police told to target low-level speeding offenders VICTORIA
fchis on 23/01/2014 - 09:35
Comments
For one, their justification is ludicrous:
"Mr Hill said the strong stance on low-level speeding was being taken because 15 deaths and 300 serious injuries could be prevented each year if drivers cut their average speed by just 1km/h."
What are they basing this on?
Probably stats
Each km/h over will result in a greater stopping distance
You can come up with statistics to prove anything, Issh. Forty percent of all people know that.
Correct, each km/h over WILL result in an increased stopping distance, how much extra depends on how much faster you were going of course.
However, this is about LOW LEVEL speeding, and thus the increase in stopping distance would not be much at all. In fact, there are better ways to decrease stopping distance. A huge one being better tires, the amount of dimwits that drive with worn tires is ridiculous, or worn brake pads.
But nonetheless, the ONLY time stopping distance plays a factor in an accident at such low speeds is when SOMEONE ELSE does something wrong. Such as running a stop sign, not giving way, cutting in front of you, J walking; or if you were not paying attention yourself.
So clearly the issue is motorists and/or users of the road being careless. We need to teach for better awareness and educate people better. We shouldn't be so vindictive on people who are speeding a fraction over, when the majority of the time that will be accounted for by margin of error anyway.Fining motorists for exceeding the speedlimit by a minor amount is nothing more than a money grab. It's revenue raising and that's that.
Yeah, I think two things:
If you're doing 1km/hr over, they pull you over. Check tires. If your tires are low or bald.. BANG you cop a fine. If not, they let you go.
that'll work.
Automated cameras don't pull people over, that's the problem. They'll set up a super camera on the bottom of a hill and watch the dollar signs tick over.
Didn't see one camera on all of the 'treacherous', black spot signed, single laned with oncoming traffic, regional roads on a recent trip. There were several in the straight, separate traffic, multi-lane road on the more populated inbound to city.
This is the kind of bs that makes this just a revenue grab and nothing more. The time it takes to 'set' cruise control to correct speeds or constantly monitor an odometer can be better spent actually looking at the road and surrounding traffic.
Totally agree with you. IT's all comes down to how much money they can make rather than how can they make the road secure.
If you keep your eyes open you'll see enough examples every day when you drive to work.
I have personally fight for cases where authorities were approving high density constructions in very dangerous places with many blind spots and right next to school gates and without enough parking within the property and letting more and more cars to be parked on street blocking the view. When the construction involves lots of money and they are willing to do anything for the approval, the authorities shamelessly block all objections from residents and allow the constructions. After the construction finished you have to put your life in danger every time you pass that dangerous spot and you no longer want to be a permanent resident there driving pass the blind spot next to your house every day.
After moving to Aus from US, every time when I see some stupid designs and places where they allow vehicles to be parked next to intersections I think how stupid it is. Unless you head on your car there is no way you can see the oncoming traffic. How can that be practical to drive on those places. People surviving driving in those places only because of luck. If it was the wrong time you will have some one hitting you from the front. The only other safe way to pass those easily avoidable blind spots is to take a passenger with you and send him to the intersection first and get him to check if there is any on coming traffic before heading on to the intersection at the blind spot.If the authorities really want to reduce accidents and deaths on the road, they need to stop creating more and more blind spots at the intersections and restrict parking on the roads when there are heaps of space left in their own lands. Lazy bastards always park on road while there is heaps of space in their own property and never use their garage or drive way to park their own car. This too increase the accidents and blind spots.
Regarding the parking of vehicles near intersections; there ARE laws in all states that define the minimum distance from a corner that one can park.
I may need a refresher on this, but I believe it was 6 metres when I took my test. If this was observed, there would be less visibility issues with vehicles trying to safely navigate the intersection.
As usual, it's down to enforcement.
Thanks, noted.
Thanks I thought it was in 10 in Tas.
There has been various studies, for example: The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), about this over the last few decades and generally the conclusion the safest speed to travel is above the posted speed limit. Sorry I don't have a link.
The reasoning is that generally most drivers are traveling slightly above the posted speed limit and anyone on or below this speed is disrupting the normal traffic flow.
It's obviously a fund raising exercise by the minister.
That doesn't make sense. Isn't that the problem? "Most drivers are travelling slightly above the posted speed limit"
Depends on view point. I was talking about the "safest speed to travel" that results in less accidents. Then it should make sense.
If its ticketing, then yes, speeding is the problem.
How would a faster speed result in less accidents? I'd like to see the statistics of this study, probably considering long roads with no one on them and a bunch of silly extra material like getting their quicker so you don't get tired at the wheel.
I think it's safe to say a faster speed will result in worse accidents.
Car kids have all the crazy conspiracy theories.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but that study could have found something like by driving close to the limit (even a little above) people will be looking at their speedo less…hence more time with eyes on the road.
Also, having to follow EXACT limits and not even 1km/hr or higher results in more volatile driving. You end up breaking more often. For example, in Melbourne city link, the speed if 80km/h, but the road is down-hill. The whole time in the tunnel you have your foot on the brakes to maintain speed, and this is distracting you off the road.
My personal experience is that you face more accidents when you drive slow and the chances of hitting becomes extremely more when there are multiple stupid drivers blocking all the lanes including the right most ones at the same time. This creates more accidents when other drivers see that the whole road is empty in front of those very slow vehicles and then try to change lanes at the same time to get a space to go pass the slow ones.
In my whole 17 years of driving life (5 in SL, 6 in US and 6 in Aus) I have faced 3 accidents and all in Australia. In US I used to drive faster and above the limit as in the states I lived in police don't catch or fine unless you drive well above the limit. When you drive within may be 10 miles above limit they show a blind eye. I never had accidents there.
I was hit from the back twice. Once when I was waiting at a red light behind some cars. Second one was when I was driving in traffic behind an extremely slow car. The last one was in shopping centre parking looking for a parking lot driving at walking speed and a car which was in a parking bay suddenly revered on to me.
I normally drive exactly on the speed limit and some times can go couple above but don't drive slow when the road is clear. But all my accidents are when I was slow or stopped. So this move from minister doesn't make any sense to me.
The other interesting thing in here is that I don't see much effort to make the driving safe or even enforcement where it's very risky and dangerous how ever everything is there to catch you when the road is very clear and less traffic on streets. I even saw a cop pointing his speed gun next to the big bend at a 10 or 15 km/h zone at the lowest tip of Vic in Wilsons Promontery national park where you hardly see a human or a car. I didn't know how to react I just took the foot out from the pedal and let the car cruise at around 5 until the cop completely disappears from the side mirror. They might have set the speed up for the safety of animals as it was a national park but if they try to make money using a speedgun in that place when the allowed threshold from the sped limit is only 3 km, it's far distant objective from the safety. On that day I understood how desperate even a government department can be.
That's the problem with statistics: You feed in tens of thousands of crashes into a data model and it's possible to draw a nice graph showing how any amount of extra speed above the limit should cause excess deaths and injuries. I wouldn't be surprised if the graph would show that exceeding the speed limit by an average of 0.1km/h would cause at least 1 extra road death per year. Remember the common mantra, if it only saves one life it's worth it…
I would say driving while sleepy, distracted, not paying enough attention, using inappropriate speed (driving at the limit is sometimes dangerous on some wet roads) are far bigger killers than a tiny amount of excess speed spread across the entire population. But it's impossible to fine drivers who don't pay enough attention.
Based on what Mr Hill said, if everybody drives at 20km lower than average speed limit that means zero fatality (based on 300+ people fatality in Victoria last year).
That means in CBD, we should all drive at 20km/hr and no urban area is above 40km and highway is all from 60-80km.
Apart from this being super-stupid, if he really cares about deaths, why don't he just ban cars altogether rather than fining the crap out of drivers by thousands of cuts…
Plus the use of stats are riddled with assumptions such reaction time assumptions, braking distance, etc etc which has little resemblance to reality.
This sort of thing is quite predictable. When they need money, they just ask Monash Uni to commission a research like the one Mr Hill talking about, and then lo and behold, the research comes back in their favour, and the Govt starts trumpeting the research and jack hard on the fines/enforcement - reaping money in the process until they earn enough OR until the backlash is hurting politically, stay in hiatus until the furore beds down, and repeat again.
10 years ago it would be inconceivable to have 30km/hr in CBD but the Greens are proposing such thing. Once the 30km/hr is in, they will want 20km/hr until people are sick driving to city and voila mission accomplished…
It's no secret that lowering the speed would result in less deaths, the issue is you have to balance that chance against the industry/economics of the nation.
Why would the greens ever get their way? Labor isn't in.
Actually, based on the reports I have heard, the reason they are doing this today is because its back to school day and that they are targeting drivers that speed in areas around schools.
Another money grab…
Some things in this world are inherently risky and driving a car is definitely one of them.
I'd love to know if a fine for doing 61 in a 60 zone would stand up in court. Particularly if there were 1000 of them contested. Surely no piece of measurement equipment with so many variables could be within a 1km/hr tolerance?
Am I going to change my driving ways for being fined at 1km/hr over the limit? No.
Edit: Should probably add, that I'm not a "speeder" as such: 10yrs of driving without a speeding fine, so its not likely to affect me. But I'd raise hell if I received a $190 ticket for being 1km over.
Having heard Robert Hill on the radio this morning, this seemed to be the point he was trying to get across - there would be zero tolerance for being over the limit by 1-2km/hr and the only way to avoid being fined was to treat the speed limit as an absolute maximum.
treat the speed limit as an absolute maximum
That actually IS the idea of a speed limit - advisory speed limits (recommended but not enforced) are the ones on yellow background.
Nothing stops you driving a 1-2 km/h under just to be safe.
They should fire the entire RTA for giving you a license!
If I recall, the L's and P's test has this question and if you get it wrong its immediate fail
not the test I did a less than 5 years ago I'm afraid.
Except you're dealing with human beings not robots - a margin of error is fair and rational. You can't even tell if you're doing 60 or 61. Reduce speeds by 5kph universal and leave in a margin for error if you're worried about saving lives vs raising revenue.
Most cars have a dial gauge as a speedo
They expect you to carry a verneir with you and to use it while driving
Seems every country in Europe and the US have higher speed limits then Oz
European Governments don't live from traffic infringement and gambling revenue.
Can Police and policy makers guarantee us absolute safety if we are traveling at the speed limit? It's just a magic number that means nothing. There are many ways to die and traveling a vehicle is not likely to be one of them. I think there a many more productive ways to reduce incidents on the road. This is a complete waste of time and money.
Speed limits aren't there to guarantee safety, but to reduce risk.
This is ridiculous. They just want more money. Might as well set speed limits to 20 on all roads everywhere .
20hmph is still too fast… needs to be 5-10kmph… like at a shopping centre carpark…
And when revenue drops below a certain point because people have adapted to this draconian measure, the next step will be to reduce posted limits further because people are still dying on the roads and 30km/h is "safer" than 40km/h…your 10km/h limit is the logical conclusion.
It's revenue-raising plain and simple.
Thank God I didn't work on cars that drive itself. They will never hit the road due to severe revenue drop from speed camera fines.
This is just another revenue raising policy. If the Vic Police were serious about stopping speeders they would get rid of unmarked cars and ensure you do not drive on any major highway in the state without seeing a highly visible police presence. Use of unmarked cars and unsigned cameras does not stop speeders it catches and fines them.
Excellent point – I had not considered this angle before.
Yes i agree! I lived in Melbourne for several years and although i was driving a fair bit all over the city, i had 4 fines. ALL were for exactly 6kms over the posted limit -how accurate can vehicle speedos be anyway, 2 for 60zones (have no idea how i could have been speeding as they were on roads very busy with traffic) 1 for 90zone (a small section of hwy at 90km out nth west of city-where the posted speed is 100 then 90 then back to 100)and 1 for 100 zone on the hwy heading nth to NSW. The 100 zone i did see a police car after i had past it - was hiding in the bushes on the median strip. All others were never seen and didn't know anything until i got the fine (via boss as it was company car and fortunately he was OK about it). I have been driving for over 30yrs (NSW,QLD,VIC,NT)and i get 4 speeding ticket in a 4yr period in Vic but none in NSW or QLD or NT. Did it change anything, yes it made me very paranoid while driving in Vic and i believe a less capable driver.
BTW I have only ever had 1 accident, a very hot day in NSW i was in 3 lanes of traffic and a gap opened in the lane to my right (i had to turn further up-being responsibly prepared) so as i went to change lanes the sweat on my hands made the wheel slip and i hit the car in front. NO SPEEDING - i was dong about 5kms/hr.
I don't believe they are concerned with safety in VIC, if i had seen those police/hidden camera that booked me speeding i would have known the circumstances and would be aware of what happened, not 3 wks later having to try to remember and still been driving the same. I am a driver that tries to stick to the speed limit and will slow down when others tail-gait so they either pass me or back off, i don't have a beef with the police but on this issue i am not happy.how accurate can vehicle speedos be anyway?
Not very. Depends on the speedo, vehicle marque, speedo supplier QC and other factors. If your tyres are a different overall circumference to standard fitment, this will also affect speedo accuracy.
But in a standard car, they usually overstate your speed by up to 10%. So if it's indicating 100km/h you're probably doing anything between 90-100.
The VW range that I bought from are all measured for 9% (reduction) and this appears a factory setting. At 10% you can have the manufacturer 'repair' the odometers faulty, but under that they are within acceptable limits.
That means you drive the speed limit on the car, say 100km/h and are actually doing 91km/h which really makes you out of odds with traffic, or you need to do maths on the fly and adjust to 109km/h on the speedo to stick with the flowing traffic.
Yes, you won't get a speeding fine going by the speedo reading, but I find this tactic a bit like people who set their clocks 10 minutes faster so they can get to work on time…
I suppose the alternatives are an aftermarket speedo sharing the speed sensor output, or an accurate speedo app on your phone.
Don't nav units also show speed? I genuinely don't know as I don't use one.
I think the intention of unmarked cars is to set this idea of omnipresence by the police, to make the drivers think about their actions before taking them. Since the police drive unmarked vehicles you naturally do not know if there is a cop behind you or not which brings paranoia and is more likely to persuade you from not doing the illegal action.
Funny incident this morning (Tas).
An X-Trail is stopped at red lights. A marked cop car stops in the adjacent left lane. It's a 50 zone. The SUV very briskly launches off the line.
I'm right behind him and slowly accelerate to 50. The cop car is slightly ahead of me but we're doing the same speed.Just 500 metres from the lights, the SUV is now ~200 metres ahead and about to turn right at a roundabout. The cop now accelerates, grabs the right lane and follows. I see his flashing lights about 50 metres down the side-street.
What's up with that? Either he didn't see the cop car or had seen it, and was paranoid about something.
Many people have no idea what is going on around them.
If anyone wants change we need to take a leaf from international pages and stage peaceful protests against things that we are against. It's really the only way the governments get the point. I've seen this complained about everywhere including facebook at the end of the day it will be introduced and we'll be sheeple as usual and obey.
They have created a country where the speed limit is becoming more distracting than the mobile phone.
Maybe they should just introduce cars that read speed signs and your car doesn't let you go over that limit. This should stop all speeding and revenue raising. Maybe then the police and goverments can concentrate on things like crime and violence.
You know stuff that actually matters.
This is complete BS. Who says the nominated speed limit is the appropriate speed for all times and all conditions. There are stretches of roads where you can see police cars carrying senior officers exceeding limits (with their elbows out the window). These officers are no doubt good, experienced drivers. They are driving a natural and safe speed, but it may be above the stipulated limit.
Police have the community's respect in so many ways but then lose so much of that from overly officious speed fining. They need more discretion and to be seen to use it.
Driving on a quiet dual carriageway at speed limit 60 feels like you are almost at a stop. But if the same roadway is busy, it may be appropriate to drive slower than that limit. A good driver knows the difference.Have a read of my comment below?
Scroll or click this link:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/131323#comment-1814364
Speculation: The Victoria minister was handed an insurance industry funded study showing that lower speeds would save money for the insurance companies. After a short consultation with an insurance industry lobbyist (who promised funding for the next election) the minister announced a zero tolerance policy on speeding, even though the margin of error on speed detection devices makes this impossible to prosecute.
Stealing money from people is what government does.
Australia is one step closer to dictatorship, and everyone is a criminal.One day the govt will be like whats happening in Ukraine
I agree that in the short to medium term, this is about $$$
I'm also aware that given the total area of the road network and Vic's population, it's the most camera-ridden state in the country.Just as mandatory stability control for new cars was introduced recently, the Vic Govt will come to your aid if you're stressing about being a tiny bit over the speed limit.
They'll either mandate cruise control for all vehicles (difficult on bikes) or more likely, speed governors. The ABC ran a story spruiking the current potential of such technologies a few months ago.
The irony — hypocrisy — is hearing Lib pundits and pollies bemoan the Nanny State we're in danger of becoming!
Simple answer to everyone worried about this being a revenue raising exercise… I doubt police will do you for 1km/h over the limit since there is an element of police error, but anything under 10km/h over the limit will net you a fine without compromise…
If you're worried about getting a fine, don't speed. I don't care if you think you can't drive without speeding, raise that damn right foot! I'm not saying I'm a saint, but if I got a speeding fine when I know I was speeding, then I'll cop it on the chin. I would be doing the wrong thing, potentially turning an accident with minor repercussions into something much more serious.
There are plenty of situations where it is much safer to be focusing on the road environment, than on your speedo to avoid being on the wrong side of what amounts to be a tiny margin for error.
I'll take a driver who goes 5km/h over the speed limit over someone who floats in a blind spot when a potential merge situation is approaching. There are just so many more dangerous habits on the road than very low range speeding, yet there never seems to be any education / enforcement of these practices.
Maybe they target speed coz it is the easiest to enforce? I completely agree on your point - other unsafe driving practices are equally, if not more dangerous than speeding.
Aside from the blatant revenue collection exercise (It's really an undeclared form of taxation), road safety is not about speeding over the limit by a few K's…the majority of accidents are not attributed to being over the speed limit, but rather excessive speed for the circumstances. A classic example of this is when driving conditions are impacted by wet roads.
I can only imagine an increase in accidents happening as more and more people take their eyes off the road and rivet them to the speedo to ensure compliance.
BTW, have a look at http://aussiespeedingfines.com/ for an informative perspective on this topic. NOTE: I have no financial interest in this site - but have used the contents of the site twice both with successful outcomes.
If the speed limit is 60 then go 60. I hate the idiots who go 55 thinking it's safer, you're making other drivers angry and want to do bad things.
End rant.
Those idiots - who choose to travel at 55 in a 60 zone - hate you back
Fk em.
I am one of them, so FK u… Ha Ha
Well it is safer in the sense that if you crash, they're more likely but not guaranteed to suffer less damage. They're also keeping the 5km/h as a buffer zone to avoid over-speeding and getting taxed.
But as the person above stated, it could also be more dangerous as they become more or less a traffic hazard.
Also, those drivers should move to the left lane or pull over the side if they intend on going slow.
A lot of drivers need anger management and far more think that they are Rocky Balboa when they get in a vehicle who can take on the world when in fact they are little mumsy boys who when it comes to the crunch buckle, I know this because I've called their bluffs at traffic lights ect and won…one day I might get a beating but oh well :)
.
Edit: removed
Studies have shown that the average driver will always drive at a speed they deem reasonable for the conditions they are driving in. IMO speed limits should be set with contributions from the public, motoring groups (NRMA) and the engineers who designed the roads.
Exactly, who is to say that the designated speed limit is the most appropriate. I want to know: who decides, and is it reviewed? If the authorities were really interested they'd be seeking feedback. If statistics tend to show that particular spots attract more fines than others, they interpret that as showing the need for cameras at those spots. Others could more justifiably interpret the same statistics as showing that the speed limit there is inappropriate. Note, I am not talking about accident black spots, where I support speed deterrents.
Good drivers drive to the conditions. A good driver has his eyes on the road, mirrors and traffic, not constantly on the speedo.
I have had my share of low range speed fines and I have never had an at fault accident in 30+ years.
While writing, one of my current bugbears is drivers overtaking at their cruise control speed, which can take an eternity, completely oblivious and uncaring of blocking a lane.
I recall a few years back driving in Quebec, Canada. Middle of a blizzard, mind you. Three lanes. Traffic.
No accidents there- from the border of NY to Quebec (a very long way). Had I not kept up to everyone else's speed, I truly felt I might be rear-ended. We were moving, as a pack, at 140km.
Not that I want that- but the point being that 1- 5 km over limit (by choice or accident) is not going to make one unsafe.
Never mind a speed-gun/camera—-> how about a device that tags the fricking mobile phone users/texters? Erratic driving is the worst safety hazard.
What about the person who sits in the "over-taking" lane who goes exactly the same km as the guy in the left lane (or SLOWER)? You cause multiple cars to back up behind you- who then attempt to get past you by switching left & then back to right. Move over, or are you brain dead? Really? You don't notice your rear-view & all those cars behind you? Are you a psychopath? Must be- a sane person would move over.
Or, the people approaching a well-known "merge" who seem to think "merge" means to speed up to the point of no-more-room in order to cause many km's of motorists behind you to hit their freaking brakes? NO ONE should EVER hit their breaks to merge. Decide which lane is going to be the dominant lane & signal>move there>in plenty of time.
Imho.
@ Geekomatic
Till they hit a Blizzard…
http://www.smh.com.au/world/3-dead-in-46car-pileup-on-midwes…That wasn't exactly a "blizzard"- it was lake effect snow. That's actually worse, because you're driving along in the clear & suddenly the snow (blowing hard, from one side) just suddenly appears & you're blind. It also usually has the added danger of having been blowing long enough to create a nice layer of either slippery-slush or black ice. If that had been me, I would have done my best to drive off into the median. You can't hit your breaks, or you slide…very bad indeed!
I used to live in Canada for almost 7 years many year ago and travelled and lived across Canada (Victoria, Vancouver, Kamloops, Albtera, Toronto, Waterloo, Ottawa,old Quebec and etc.. you name it). You can cruise on the Highway at 130km/hr with a speed limit that reads 110km/hr without getting caught because the Policemen are cruising at 130km/hr as well. I agreed driving in snow or icy road is kinda dangerous unless you have a decent 4WD SUV in Winter.
Off the record: I often drive 50 above the limit on the freeway back then but just be careful and mindful about the hidden police. IMOH, it will be safe to cruise at high speed given if you are focusing on the road at all time.
Ps. I love Canada.
The real danger is when anyone sees a late model vehicle on the side of the road they slam their brakes on so shit scared that they'll get a ticket. I bet that's caused it's fair share of accidents.
I'd like to Chime in here with regards to police speeding.
AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 305
Exemption for drivers of police vehicles
305 Exemption for drivers of police vehicles(1) A provision of the Australian Road Rules does not apply to the driver of a police vehicle if:
(a) in the circumstances:
(i) the driver is taking reasonable care, and
(ii) it is reasonable that the provision should not apply, and
(b) if the vehicle is a motor vehicle that is moving-the vehicle is displaying a blue or red flashing light or sounding an alarm.
Note: "Motor vehicle" and "police vehicle" are defined in the dictionary.
(2) Subrule (1) (b) does not apply to the driver if, in the circumstances, it is reasonable:
(a) not to display the light or sound the alarm, or
(b) for the vehicle not to be fitted or equipped with a blue or red flashing light or an alarmWith particular attention to Part 1A ii.
It is reasonable that the provision should not apply.They also seem to use the questionable 'reasonable' to speed whenever the hell they feel like it and as much as they'd like to; so long as they deem that the speed they are travelling at is 'safe'.
This whole argument of speeding is ludicrous when the police drivers are blatantly speeding at an average of 10km/h and above… at least in New South Wales.
Its the speed LIMIT not a bloody target so if you go over tough, its simple don't speed and you have nothing to worry about. I hope they target the tailgaters who try to make you speed.
.
Why it's tailgaters problem if a stupid driver drives at 30kmh on a 90 kmh road blocking all the traffic.
A couple of weeks before I was driving to Craddle Mountain in Tassie. I had to drive at least 35km before I managed to overtake a car which was driven at 30 on the 100 and 90 road which was occasionally 60. There was at least 30 vehicle following that car for all that way and I was may be 10th car behind it. The road had two clearly marked lanes but it was curvy road. There were no overtaking lanes at all but so many places that the slow drivers could easily give way to others to go pass but this stupid one didn't bother for that. Everybody behind were really frustrated. At the end my self and couple of other cars took so much risk and overtook all the vehicles in the front from the wrong side when it was allowed but the road was still curvy, we checked the on coming traffic at a clear bend and did that. Still some guys took too much risk overtaking at the unclear bends. It was all out of frustration. It's not safe when you drive very slow as that helps increasing the frustration of others and people tend to do crazy things putting every body elses lives at risk. That's a good way to increase accidents and deaths on streets. Why there is no rule to fine extremely slow drivers on completely empty roads?
I have seen very similar situations in Great Ocean roads where very slow drivers don't even keep left at the over taking lanes.
Exactly. When you're driving at a ridiculously slow speed, you're basically asking for trouble. Don't be surprised if you get tailgated or even cut off.
Why there is no rule to fine extremely slow drivers on completely empty roads?
Of course there is a rule.
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians (Tas, Vic)
… Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.But, if there's no police there's no fine.
(That's not a swipe at police in general, but the general lack of policing on the roads. I've been caught in a line of traffic stuck behind a painfully slow driver, thankfully a police car overtook with lights and siren and pulled the slow driver over and waved everyone past.)
The Place To Be, huh?
Not sure about this, but can a speeding ticket be contested based on the accuracy of the measuring devices. On a 60km limit a difference of 1-2 km/hr is just about 5%. I guess the measuring devices would have that level of inaccuracy.
Just a thought. I heard from a friend in US contesting (successfully) a speeding ticket based on measurement inaccuracy data of the camera used.
You will find that this is allowed for. Part of the reason that if you get a fine, the speed they charge you for will be less than what you were actually doing.
Exactly,that was my point.It is not unusual to go over by 2km/hr before hitting the break in a downhill. Wonder what will be the basis of giving a ticket for low range speeding. By the above logic, someone doing 65km/hr should get a 2km/hr speeding violation assuming 5% measurement inaccuracy.
A few unit variation between actual and speedometer speeds may sometimes be a result of switching to non-stock wheels, for example.
I have seen a few cameras placed at downhills in Sydney. Maybe for revenue purposes :)
There's nothing that frustrates me more than reaching the crest of a hill and driving down the hill constantly sitting on my brakes the entire way down. In a 60 zone.
Clearly the conditions are safe - excellent visibility, open road, no pedestrians or cyclists, no traffic lights or islands, no parked cars on the sides of roads, barely any oncoming traffic.
Why the f*** is it necessary to go 60, when rolling down the hill at 70 or 80 is perfectly reasonable? Braking the whole way down the hill does nothing but wear out your break pads, burn fuel and reduces efficiency.
Because it might also burn a hole in your wallet — unfortunately.
What about the cyclist you didn't see?, she's now dead because you hit her at 80kph, at 60kph her chances of survival would have been higher. No one ever intends to go out and hit anyone but it happens and you crying in court that your sorry and thought it was safe is not going to save you.
For example, http://www.examiner.com.au/story/1995867/cyclist-killed-on-w… sunny clear morning and a good visible road.
.
If speed is so dangerous, LOWER THE LIMIT. But lowering the tolerances instead is blatant revenue raising.
Think about it. If you have a 100kmh road which you think is too fast, you could either:
- A) reduce the speed tolerance (which will only make a small difference in average speed but a BIG increase in revenue)
OR
- B) reduce the speed to 90kmh and keep a ~10% tolerance (which will make a BIG difference in average speed but won't net much revenue)
Which does Victoria choose? They choose A) because their motivations are money, not safety. 1kmh is about ~1/2mm movement on the speedo. This won't save lives, but it will undermine confidence in the government and police force.
When you applied for your license and took your test you were very happy to abide the law, now you got it you have become complacent and think you are above it.
Looks like the government is struggling to raise revenue again. Will be back to smokers again soon. Then drinkers. Then gamblers. And the cycle continues…
Out the front of my place, it used to be a two lane 70kph road. A few years back they converted it to a three lane with service lane road - then dropped the limit to 60kph. There's a police car hidden just where it changes from 80kph to 60kph pretty much every week day. Their ROI at that location must be awesome.
Yes, and it's a monopoly business too lol.
The cost of diminishing returns always gets left out of the argument. Some users (sarcastically) mentioned reducing the speed limit to 10km/hr to ensure no fatalities. However that can not be guaranteed either.
I find it far more dangerous drivers that go under the speed limit, or the ones that hog the right lane, or constantly looking at your speedo rather than focusing on the road. VIC dont you have the motoring enthusiast party? at least something good may come out of them. !!
As you state "I find it far more dangerous drivers that go under the speed limit" are you sure you are legally allowed to drive in this country?. A sensible response is hard to find to such an idiotic statement.
When you think about it though.
According to them "Driving Fast = More Deaths, Driving Slow = Less/No Deaths".
However if everybody is driving at 20km/h on a 80km/h road, it would most likely cause more accidents when people fall asleep at their wheel with not enough stimulation to keep them awake, hence causing more accidents.You don't hear on the news that often about accidents on German Autobahns which allow unlimited speed. lol.
Its all to do with driver, you have sh1t drivers and you have good drivers. The good ones don't take unnessisary risks.I've seen some pretty sh1tty drivers who would not even indicate and just overtake you by almost missing you by 1 cm.
it would most likely cause more accidents when people fall asleep at their wheel with not enough stimulation to keep them awake, hence causing more accidents.
Apart from the absurdity of the falling asleep argument, even if there were more accidents there would be less fatal accidents.
You don't hear on the news that often about accidents on German Autobahns which allow unlimited speed.
Because we are in Australia not Germany? 387 died on a autobahn in 2012.
Its all to do with driver, you have sh1t drivers and you have good drivers. The good ones don't take unnessisary risks.
And do you intend to take licences away? How do you intend to measure if a driver is 'good'?
PS: I'm not saying all speed limits should be lower, I'm saying your arguments are rubbish.
Anyone know how this will affect the 3km/hr tolerance?
Good.Why should they not?